The left and the "Nazis"

Go to page

Go to page

Honorary Master

Virtue signalling and other strange behaviours of the common or garden variety SJW.

So, I've been thinking lately of the the Lefty tendency of vilifying those they disagree with rather than simply offering a counter argument to whatever it is they disagree with.

Here is why I think they use this strategy:

1.) They don't really understand the issues. Let's call this Useful Idiot Syndrome. The sufferer just has a feeling that a certain view point is morally superior, without being able to even explain what makes any given viewpoint morally superior never mind their particular view point. Basically the inability to make real arguments necessitates avoiding real arguments.

2.) Real debate is boring. Let's call this Outrage Junky Syndrome. People can be stupid and fearful, but generally they have good intentions. If one were to have a patient, civil, rational debate with your ideological opponents you might realise that and where are you going to get your endorphin rush then? Which leads to...

3.) Modern society is looking for emotional stimulus. I'm not sure what to call this. Basically we are more willing to reward behaviour that makes us feel emotion than we are to reward something that makes us think. So, if someone can find something that excites our passions we will listen and applaud. Which leads us to...

4.) Modern society is angry and we don't know why. The fact is society doesn't really allow us to just be generally angry. No one likes it when people shout and stamp their feet, unless... we're angry too, in which case we become a mob and it feels good to be a part of a mob. The SJW sphere gives frustrated malcontents something "legitimate" and socially acceptable to be angry about.

5.) Humans are bigots. Tribalism is engrained in our DNA. It's natural to fear and hate the other because that has been a survival trait for the vast majority of human history. So, what's a well meaning dullard who has a deep seated need to hate someone do? " You can't hate people because of their race, gender, sexual preference or creed anymore. Ah wait, you can hate Nazis, such a pity they're just a minor bunch of fringe inbreds these days. Hang on what if they werent? What if there were way more Nazis than can be seen and they're hiding in plain site? Since I'm a good, non bigoted person with the correct opinions that must mean those who disagree with my opinions are clandestine Nazis! Happy days! It's cool to hate again".

And before someone inevitably asks if I'm not doing exactly what I'm accusing the SJWs of, no I'm not. I'm being critical in trying to understand something, I'm not simply applying a label that puts someone beyond consideration. And sure there are those who engage in this exact behaviours on the other side of the political spectrum, I just don't believe it's nearly as prevalent as it is on the left at the moment.

Honorary Master

Leftists are indoctrinated with cultural Marxism at university, typically in the form of being presented with some form of deconstructive literary analysis (this includes basically all gender studies courses, etc.)

The political (rather than analytic or conceptual) critique of binary oppositions is an important part of third wave feminism, post-colonialism, post-anarchism, and critical race theory, which argue that the perceived binary dichotomy between man/woman, civilized/uncivilised, and white/black have perpetuated and legitimized Western power structures favoring "civilized white men." In the last fifteen years it has become routine for many social and/or historical analyses to address the variables of gender, class, sexuality, race and ethnicity.[15] Within each of these categories there is usually an unequal binary opposition: bourgeoisie/working class man; white/people of colour; men/women; heterosexual/homosexual.[15]

In philosophy, essence is the property or set of properties that make an entity or substance what it fundamentally is, and which it has by necessity, and without which it loses its identity. Essence is contrasted with accident: a property that the entity or substance has contingently, without which the substance can still retain its identity. The concept originates rigorously with Aristotle (although it can also be found in Plato)[1], who used the Greek expression to ti ên einai (τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι,[2] literally meaning "the what it was to be" and corresponding to the scholastic term quiddity) or sometimes the shorter phrase to ti esti (τὸ τί ἐστι,[3] literally meaning "the what it is" and corresponding to the scholastic term haecceity) for the same idea. This phrase presented such difficulties for its Latin translators that they coined the word essentia (English "essence") to represent the whole expression. For Aristotle and his scholastic followers, the notion of essence is closely linked to that of definition (ὁρισμός horismos).[4]

In his dialogues Plato suggests that concrete beings acquire their essence through their relations to "Forms"—abstract universals logically or ontologically separate from the objects of sense perception. These Forms are often put forth as the models or paradigms of which sensible things are "copies". When used in this sense, the word form is often capitalized.[5] Sensible bodies are in constant flux and imperfect and hence, by Plato's reckoning, less real than the Forms which are eternal, unchanging and complete. Typical examples of Forms given by Plato are largeness, smallness, equality, unity, goodness, beauty and justice.

Aristotle moves the Forms of Plato to the nucleus of the individual thing, which is called ousia or substance. Essence is the ti of the thing, the to ti en einai. Essence corresponds to the ousia's definition; essence is a real and physical aspect of the ousia (Aristotle, Metaphysics, I).

"Essence," in metaphysics, is often synonymous with the soul, and some existentialists argue that individuals gain their souls and spirits after they exist, that they develop their souls and spirits during their lifetimes. For Kierkegaard, however, the emphasis was upon essence as "nature." For him, there is no such thing as "human nature" that determines how a human will behave or what a human will be. First, he or she exists, and then comes property. Jean-Paul Sartre's more materialist and skeptical existentialism furthered this existentialist tenet by flatly refuting any metaphysical essence, any soul, and arguing instead that there is merely existence, with attributes as essence.

According to Foucault, it is the "effect" of power and "disciplines" (see Discipline and Punish: construction of the subject (subjectivation or subjectification, French: assujettissement) as student, soldier, "criminal", etc.). Foucault believed it was possible to transform oneself; he used the word ethopoiein from the word ethos to describe the process.[8] Subjectification was a central concept in Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari's work as well.[9]

Leftist ideology cannot function without Marxism. Marxism cannot function without the idea of alienation of one from one's essence. The idea of alienation is what is used to justify the notion that exclusion equates to oppression and tyranny. The postmodern assault on binary structures argues that the imposition of these structures amounts to exclusion and alienation. And because it's all Marxist, it includes a denial of individual identity and instead tries to force one into carrying out the function of one's group identity (i.e. species being/essence).

See, the one thing that is absolutely anathema to the current leftist mindset is constructive behaviour. Their behaviour is aimed squarely at deconstructing and undermining everything in society that is constructive. Afterall, that is what deconstruction must ultimately be about. Leftists do need some structure, though, so what they do to get around this is to demand that their structures display the appropriate amount of guilt to compensate for the travesty.

Edit:

This is also one of the reasons why the NPC meme is so damn effective. SJWs literally took the P out of the PC when they adopted the stance that identity was a social construction. They can't deny the dehumanising slur without abandoning their ideology, and that's why they hate it so much, imo.

Ja, I've acknowledged that there is craziness from both sides, my point is the craziness on the left has become mainstream. R13s post is a prime example. Where oh where is the right wing craziness in the Afriforum thread? I've asked for evidence that Afriforum is right wing never mind far-right and the best I've gotten is "we all know what they're about". They get compared to organisations that toy with or out right advocate racial violence. So ja, boets, if Afriforum or its supporters is the opposite side of the coin to the looney left to you, my point is proven.

Honorary Master

Ja, I've acknowledged that there is craziness from both sides, my point is the craziness on the left has become mainstream. R13s post is a prime example. Where oh where is the right wing craziness in the Afriforum thread? I've asked for evidence that Afriforum is right wing never mind far-right and the best I've gotten is "we all know what they're about". They get compared to organisations that toy with or out right advocate racial violence. So ja, boets, if Afriforum or its supporters is the opposite side of the coin to the looney left to you, my point is proven.

I don't see any attempt to shut down dissent in that thread. Here's how that thread went: some woman accused Afriforum of being far-right , apartheid apologists; people mocked her for making unsubstantiated claims. That's not shutting someone down - all she or anyone who agrees with her has to do is substantiate her claims. Other people claimed Afriforum is like the EFF and/ or BLF, I asked how, and was told they just are. Again no substantiation.

If you expect people to take criticism, make it constructive, i.e. substantiate your claims. Otherwise you're just being insulting and don't actually deserve any more courtesy than you're giving.

It's a real problem that people can't differentiate between unsubstantiated opinion and a reasoned argument. I think the reason for that is a lot of people don't really want to, because it would mean facing some hard truths.

Let's be honest a lot of people's real problem with Afriforum is that they are white, Afrikaaners who are proud to be white, Afrikaaners. I can understand why that triggers people given our history, but that doesn't mean their emotional response is rational.